Comments by AdaCiccone

Here's a few things from me after a quick read:

• There's some inconsistency in naming and transliteration: Bhagavad Gita / Bhagavad Geeta, Bhagavata Purana / Bhagavata Puran, Dvaraka / Dwaraka. Is this deliberate, as in trying to place each difference in a certain context?

No, it is a standard inconsistency, due to its translation from Devnagri script, it is not done intentionally, for Gita both translate to same document and city and if one is to be choosen then it is Bhagavad Gita and Dwarka for the city, more standard and widely accepted spelling. It will try to fix this inconsistency, thanks for raising it. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Is it possible to turn 'In popular pulture' section into a prose rather than a list? I mean at least it should explain Krishna’s representation in popular culture rather than just naming actors and productions.

It's a common feature that films with characters of Krishna have been based on the epics that involves him, I have added a paragraph just above the list, as it will be no need to rewrite it after every single item in list. PhantomVortex (Contact here) 14:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• This one is a nice-to-have, but the article could be better if it pays attention to transitions between sections and sub-sections. Try to indicate why a certain topic appears at a certain location, so that readers feel they are guided throughout the article. Again, this is a nice-to-have, not a must-have. If you genuinely think each section can stand on its own, that's fine but inserting transitions for me is better.
  • One transition that feels abrupt is from “Role and significance in religion” to “Historical and literary sources”. There's nothing to signal to readers the transition from theological significance to the development of Krishna traditions in texts, inscriptions etc. If this is something you wanna work on, then all sections and subsections better have such transitions, not just one or two.

This suggestion I genuinely like to create a transition and try to connect all subsections and sections; this is what makes it standout from typical articles on wiki; but, since it is not a mandatory one and especially very time consuming; I have planned to cover it once I fill mandatory criterias for FA. PhantomVortex (Contact here) 05:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Still on Role and significance in religion, there's one sentence that stands on its own, sandwiched between two larger paragraphs. Same thing can be seen in 'Other sources', two paragraphs that are a few sentences long and sandwiched between two larger paragraphs. This risks looking like uneven coverage. Try spotting similar issues elsewhere in the article.

I will try to expand these kinds of paragraph and look for this throughout article. PhantomVortex (Contact here) 05:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

That's it for now, maybe I'll add more later. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Question: Does it meet WP:SIZE, I think it is very long article and needs splitting, can anyone share thoughts on that? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 08:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding the article size, I think people worry about the numbers too much. WP:SIZE is just a guideline and you need to evaluate article size in relationship to the topic. Some topics are just big topics and need a big article to cover them adequately. This is one of those. Compare it to Jesus, which is twice as long. I don't think there will be any issue about article size at WP:FAC. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment. VortexPhantom, the article needs someone to carefully manage the references for consistency, accuracy, & reliability.
  By way of examples. The Bopearachchi references are not illuminating as to how they were published, and it's not immediately clear to me that there was any involvement with a reliable publisher. Why is it a "high-quality reliable source"? The Mascaró source emits a warning of ISBN / Date incompatibility. Some references use a citation style 1 template, some are citation style 2, others are {{sfn}}s, and others are handmade. Mani 1975 points to two different items, and one of those references is malformed with using the publisher and others parameters incorrectly. Some of the sources are old, such as Basu 1932, when more recent scholarship presumably exists. These are simply examples of problems and are not exhaustive. Urve (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing this issue. I will take necessary step to maintain consistency and quality. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 11:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

I'm doing some minor copyediting as I read through this, but here's some questions I have;

• Why "Mahabharata" and not "the Mahabharata", like you have with "The Bhagavata Puran"? Also, it's not clear "The" should be capitalized.
  • Many reliable sources such as and , place the before Mahabharata as it is name of a epic, while sometimes the is omitted, when we are just referring to title, not the literary work. Hence, it is accepted to place the before Mahabharata formally. The Wikipedia page of Mahabharata itself starts with "The". Additionally, it is general rule of capitalising "the" if placed after full stop and if used in middle, it is used in lowercase as the is not part of the title. For Bhagavad Puran, it is not yet confirmed, so I will research and update as soon as possible. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 09:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Text presents a spectrum of answers Perhaps "The texts present ..."?
  • Done. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 11:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Vāsudeva and Krishna fused to become a single deity, which appears in the Mahabharata going back to my previous question, why do you use "the Mahabharata" here but not in other places?
  • The Mahabharata has to be written as discussed, not just here, but wherever appropriate to match with reliable source and maintain consistency across article. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 09:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• "storm gods, sun gods, bright gods", light gods, "and gods of ritual." Why is this broken up as two different quotes?
• This phrase, which means "To Krishna the son of Devaki", has been mentioned by scholars such as Max Müller[1] as a potential source of fables and Vedic lore about Krishna in the Mahabharata and other ancient literature – only potential because this verse could have been interpolated into the text,[1] or the Krishna Devakiputra, could be different from the deity Krishna.[2] this very long and complicated sentence should be broken up.
• {{ For example, Archer states that the coincidence there's an extraneous pair of open-braces here.
• In Ashṭādhyāyī, authored by the ancient grammarian Pāṇini (probably belonged to the 5th or 6th century BCE), Vāsudeva and Arjuna, as recipients of worship, are referred to together in the same sutra. Another complicated sentence.
• in their legends about Tirthankaras. [citation needed] obviously, the citation needed will need to be resolved before FAC.
  • Hmmm, I see a bunch of these. They absolutely must be resolved, all of them, before bringing this to WP:FAC. They will be an automatic failure.
• The tenth book of the text, which contains about 4,000 verses This is confusing. Previously you said versions had 16,000 to 18,000 verses, but this one has 4,000?

(I'll pick up the next time with Iconography)

• I'm not a fan of the big slideshow at the beginning of Iconography. I don't know that it's strictly disallowed, but I suspect you'll get pushback about it at WP:FAC so be prepared for that.
• break open handis (clay pots) hung high in the air to "steal" butter or buttermilk, Why is "steal" in quotes?
• Where you talk about Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada travelling to New York City, you might want to mention the Hare Krishna Tree.

(Next time, Outside Hinduism)

• includes the twenty-four Tirthankaras (spiritual teachers) and nine sets of triads. You should explain what a "triad" is. I know you give an example in the next sentence, but when I got to the end of this sentence, I was confused.
• In each age of the Jain cyclic time is born this is an oddly worded phrase.

Now that I've read through the whole thing, I'm not sure what to say. The writing is mostly good, but I feel like it could use some touching up to make it more idiomatic in places. It's entirely possible that it's just the difference between Indian English and American English, but I think this might benefit from having the folks at WP:GOCE go over it. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)